On Point

Dahda v. United States, USSC No. 17-43, 2018 WL 2186173 (May 14, 2018), affirming United States v. Dahda, 853 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

This decision will be important to federal criminal defense practitioners dealing with evidence obtained with wiretap orders issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq, as a unanimous Court clarifies the application of United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974), to suppression challenges under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a)(ii).

Adams County HHS Dep’t v. M.J.A., 2018AP249, District 4, 4/26/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and terminated M.J.A.’s parental rights on continuing CHIPS grounds. The court should not have done that, because the parties’ summary judgment submissions show there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

State v. Harlan L. Schultz, 2017AP2185, 4/26/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schultz moved under § 974.06 to withdraw his no contest plea to OWI 4th. He argues that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to file a motion challenging the traffic stop and that he didn’t understand everything he was giving up when he entered a plea. The court of appeals rejects both claims.

Byrd v. United States, USSC No. 16-1371, 2018 WL 2186175 (May 14, 2018), vacating United States v. Byrd, 679 Fed. Appx. 146 (3rd Cir. 2017); SCOTUSblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)

Terrence Byrd was pulled over while driving a rental car with no passengers. Officers quickly realized the rental agreement for the car did not name him as the renter or an authorized driver. Though Byrd told the officers his friend had rented it, they decided he had “no expectation of privacy” and searched the car, finding body armor and heroin.

Both the district court and Third Circuit agreed with the officers: a driver not on the rental contract has no standing to complain about the search of a rental car. But all nine members of the Court conclude to the contrary: at least where a driver’s possession of the vehicle is not akin to having stolen the car (a murky caveat the Court does not today clarify), mere breach of the rental contract does not negate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

County of Fond du Lac v. William A. Tavs, 2017AP2405, 4/18/18, District 2 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

William Tavs was cited for driving with an invalid license as a civil forfeiture offense. By the time he appeared in court, he had gotten his license reinstated, and the County moved to amend to a less-significant forfeiture. The circuit court, however, saying Tavs had already “gone through quite a bit” in getting his license back, sua sponte dismissed the case. The county appealed, and the court of appeals now reverses.

City of Berlin v. Ricardo A. Adame, 2017AP2130, District 2, 4/18/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

There was a sufficient chain of custody evidence to conclude that the blood-alcohol test results offered into evidence by the state related to blood samples taken from Adame.

State v. Robert P. Vesper, 2018 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)

Vesper complains that when he was sentenced for his 7th OWI offense the judge didn’t give a separate explanation for why it was imposing a fine in addition to prison time. Over a dissent, the court of appeals concludes the judge said enough to satisfy the (not at all exacting) standard of review for exercise of sentencing discretion. The court also rejects Vesper’s claim that the judge didn’t assess his ability to pay the fine.

State v. Wayne A. Johnson, 2017AP729-CR, District 3, 4/25/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Johnson failed to satisfy his burden for getting an in camera review of counseling records under State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993), and State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, 253 Wis. 2d 356, 646 N.W.2d 298, because he didn’t prove the records were likely to provide information over and above information that was available to him from another source—Johnson’s girlfriend, who was the complaining witness’s mother.

On April 25, 2018, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Dorian M. Torres, 2018 WI App 23 (warrantless entry and search held lawful because it was authorized by third-party consent) State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2018 WI App 24 (defendant pleading NGI doesn’t need to know […]

Chippewa County v. M.M., 2017AP1325, 5/1/18, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

You don’t see this very often. A jury found M.M. mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under §51.20(1)(a)2.c based on testimony by not 1, not 2, but 3 doctors–all of whom said that M.M.’s paranoia and conduct would cause others to feel fearful and threatened and possibly assault him in an effort to protect themselves. This idea that M.M. was “indirectly” dangerous to himself did not wash with the court of appeals. It reversed and also rejected the County’s claim that M.M.’s appeal from this 6-month commitment was moot.